I’ve been visiting a lot of Christian chat rooms in Yahoo. Well…just for entertainment, you see you just can’t learn anything in a Christian chat room. Majority of people there are too terrified just reading the word “atheism” while others are too threatened to discuss their belief system. But just the same, majority always shove their “god” to everybody’s throat.

This brought me to my topic today. When I was in a certain Yahoo Christian chat room, most Christians told me that I become an atheist just to excuse myself into sinning. Whoa! What? Sinning? I don’t know the basis for this accusation. Maybe Christians think that it’s a better reason than to say I become an atheist because I started “thinking”.

Anyway, with this explanation, Christians therefore conclude atheists are morally bankrupt. But what does sin got to do with the concept of right or wrong? If a person is without sin, does that mean that the person is morally upright?

The best way to answer the question is to know the meaning of the word “sin”.

According to Christian theology, sin is the transgression of the law of God (1John 3:4). So it’s very clear that we are talking about the law of the Judeo-Christian god concept. Majority of Christians agrees that Adam and Eve were the first people to sin as a direct disobedience on God’s command. Generally speaking, if Christians think that God’s commandments are equal to good, so sin means everything that is evil – a direct rebellion to God’s command. So sin is unrighteousness. This is the foundation of Christian ethics.

Now we have a connection. Sin is the transgression of God’s law and commandments. God in inherently good and all his commandments is naturally good, according to Christian belief and to transgress God’s law and commandments you are automatically unrighteous or evil.

According to the dictionary, evil means morally objectionable behavior. The last six commandments of the Decalogue (The Ten Commandments) apply here (Ex 20:12-17). To dishonor one’s parents, to kill, to commit adultery, to steal, to bear false witness and to covet are moral evils.

Now we go to the fun part. If Christians think that sin is evil because it transgresses God’s laws and commandments, and evil means morally objectionable behaviors, then Christians should show to us non-believers that all of God’s commandments and laws are intrinsically good. Sounds easy eh…Guess again.

Now let’s talk about some of God’s commandments and laws and figure it out if it’s morally good.

1. “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”
Now, what morally good can you find in this commandment eh? Beside, can you consider bigotry a morally good act?

2. Ex. 22:29-30 says, “Do not hold back offerings from your granaries or your vats. You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for 7 days, but give them to me on the 8th day.”

Are human sacrifices morally good?

3. Ezek. 9:6 says, “Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children, and women….” and 1 Sam. 15:3 says, “…slay both man and woman, infant and suckling….”

So killing your enemies young and old, even babies are morally good?

4. Num. 31:31-40 says, “Moses and Eleazar the priest did as the Lord commanded Moses. The plunder remaining from the spoils that the soldiers took was 675,000 sheep, 72,000 cattle, 61,000 donkeys and 32,000 women who had never slept with a man…. And the half, the portion of those who had gone out to war, was….16,000 people, of which the tribute for the Lord was 32.” Women rank right up there with cattle, donkeys, and sheep. And they have to be virgins, at that! Imagine a righteous and perfect God wanting 32 virgins to be set aside for him!

5. Joshua 11:6 says, “The Lord said to Joshua,…You are to hamstring their horses and burn their chariots.”

6. Deut. 21:10-13 says, “When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord you God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife…. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.”

7. Ex. 21:20-21 says, “If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.”

8. Ezek. 4:12 says, “Eat the food as you would a barley cake; bake it in the sight of the people, using human excrement as fuel.” Can someone explain to me the moral value of these commandments?

9. “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory, nor to pilfer, but to show entire and true fidelity, so that in everything they may adorn the doctrine of God” (Titus 2:9).
• “Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free” (Eph. 6:5-7).
• “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps” (1 Peter 2:18-21).
• “Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence of the Lord. Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men, since you know that you will receive an inheritance from the Lord as a reward. It is the Lord Christ you are serving” (Col. 3:22-24).
• “All who are under the yoke of slavery should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God’s name and our teaching may not be slandered. Those who have believing masters are not to show less respect for them because they are brothers. Instead, they are to serve them even better, because those who benefit from their service are believers, and dear to them. These are the things you are to teach and urge on them” (1 Tim. 6:1-2).

Why does God command how a slave (or “servant” as how other Bibles changed the word “slave”.) should act and obey his master? Isn’t it more morally good when God should teach people to abolish slavery instead?

According to Norman Geisler it is presumptuous to think that our own moral standards should judge God and tell Him what is right and wrong. God’s unchangeably just nature is the standard of justice (When Skeptics Ask p 170). But does that statement just tells us that Christian ethics is arbitrary in nature? It just says that good is good because God wills it to be good and solve nothing. Beside, according to Christians, our moral standards came from God, if so, then what is the difference between His standard and our standard. Does that mean God can rape or plunder or murder because for God these actions are not evil and only in human standard that makes rape, plunder and murder evil?

So that is what sin is all about. It has nothing to do with upright morality since God himself is not really a good god. Reading the Christian “holey book” just shows us that this god really is a defective Law Giver. Hay my papaya, and these Christians accused atheists of being morally bankrupt? Maybe these Christians should start reading the Bible to see carnal banality and moral blasphemy face to face.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions in this post do not necessarily represent the position of the Filipino Freethinkers.

First let me again stress this fact: Atheism itself has nothing to do with ethics. Are we clear on that? Atheis does not logically entail any theory of ethics. Atheism is just about not believing in a god or gods. But, as an atheist, I can always rely on various secular theories of ethics like Secular Humanism for example.

Since we are clear with that, let us proceed:
Ok…so what is the foundation of morality in atheism? Before we answer this…as always, I rely to definitions (Sorry @ Isang Kaibigan, that's my style).

morality (m-rl'-t, m-) n. pl. moralities1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.

So there must be a standard, right? What standard are we going to use then? Does religion synonymous with virtue? Do the belief in God synonymous to a better ethical standard? Again, we are just running in more questions huh?

Then can there be "good" atheists or "bad" atheist? What will be the atheist's standards?

Atheist ethics comes from those ideas that fills in the blank with something in this world. The fact that atheists have their choice of what to value makes atheist ethics relative. The fact that an atheist ultimate value is something in this world has the advantage that they can choose to value objective things, making their personal ethics objective. Atheists have the objective experience of living in this world that they see in front of them. Morality would then not emanate from a supreme being; but rather from their own belonging to a world larger than themselves . Their dependencies confer obligations upon us- these are built into being human.

Now that I have set up my standards…then it is possible for an atheist to have his foundation of morality!

Epistemology of Morality
It seems "Isang Kaibigan" would like to lecture me on the epistemology of morality…hohum…sorry…not interested.

Anyway, since this guy is obviously a believer, it is my assumption that he believed that morality came from a supernatural source…hence a god. Yet the candidates for possible objects of moral knowledge are divided into three categories: natural (objects that are knowable only through experience), non-natural (but not supernatural), and theological (or supernatural). I don't need to elaborate, but base on my first answers, it's obvious that my source rely on something that is not…eh supernatural.

If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

I was wondering what atheism has to do with slavery here. We are talking about ethics from a so-called Christian God…but if "Isang Kaibigan" insisted…Well…it is quite difficult to be objective about something something that's purely subjective…anyway, let us assume for a while that morality is objective. Now given, that still doesn't follow that morality, if objective, must be handed by a supernatural agent as Ravi Zacharias admitted in his book " Can Man Live Without God?" – " For a philosophy (for Zacharias, atheism is a philosophy) that define life apart from God, there is a plethora of options." (p. 56)

In your case @ "Isang Kaibigan", if atheism is correct, slavery is still evil (objective) because its value is derive from empathy from other conscious beings. Since humans are social animals, it is not surprising that a sort morality will emerge naturally in human population. That's why our species survived in the first place.

Servitude is evil, is not only defined by religious morality @ "Isang Kaibigan". Rational morality – morality based on human values for his survival, well-being and happiness – is also capable to create an objective structure of moral theory. In essence, morality is a natural feature of humans and we don't need a god to dictate or imposed his divine fiats in order for us to understand what is good or evil.

It is presumptuous to think that our own moral standards should judge God and tell Him what is right and wrong. God’s unchangeably just nature is the standard of justice.

So according to "Isang Kaibigan", what Giesler is saying is that God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules…better yet…God is good all the time. But that doesn't tell us anything about what goodness is.

Isang Kaibigan (or Giesler) argument presumes that moral values proceed from and are defined by God. Then may I ask, "Why is God's nature good? Is it because God says so, or because it mindlessly conforms to a standard greater than God?"

Now if God did choose to change his mind on what is morally allowed (Example: to make killing acceptable) then there is no way "Isang Kaibigan" nor Giesler could complain: what was bad is now good, by definition, with no other justification needed.

If they will say that “God wouldn’t change his mind and make killing okay, because God is good and killing is wrong,” then they are attempting to hold God to a moral standard beyond or independent to Himself.

Being a theist and a freethinker, I’d love to answer every point PinoyAtheist made against Bible verses. (His questions simply reveal his lack of Biblical knowledge. I still respect PinoyAtheist for that. I just hope he did more research.) I will do that if he will present first his foundation for morality. The best I could find from his article is “According to the dictionary, evil means morally objectionable behavior.” This seems to me just a matter of taste.

Well anyway, I presume that he assumes that objective moral values and duties exist. If my presumption is wrong, then he probably believes in relative morality.
My question is, if atheist is true, on what ground does atheistic morality stand on? This is a question of ontology. If this is settled, then I can move on to the epistemology of morality, which is actually his issue here.

For example, he suggested that God should have abolished slavery. If atheism is true, will slavery be objectively evil? Why?
(You gotta research on the whole Biblical stance on slavery, not just pick up a part without regard to the whole.)

Please clarify also your objections from #5 to 8. You made no comment about why they were evil commands.

I also think he did not understand what Geisler meant when he asked “But does that statement just tells us that Christian ethics is arbitrary in nature?” God’s commandments flows from His nature. It is not arbitrary for God but rather natural for God to command such and such. He cannot command otherwise. He unchanging nature means He is consistent with His rules.

Moreover, granting without conceding that God is morally imperfect, that does not necessarily mean that atheism is true.

Let me go back to my main question: what is the foundation of the morality of atheism? (How can evil be evil and good be good if atheism is true?)

Seriously, is it the whole point to be a free thinker being anti something? Being anti establishment was somewhat cool once but these days it's like liking grunge or reggae. Can't free thinking advocate something like revolution, lower taxes, less government, mayhem? Just saying.

Dealing with the anti-rhb you will only know the "argument" until you actually talk to them. My wife keeps telling me its nuts of me to talk to nuts. I realize from that experience and your arguments with these Xtians that there is more to learn about humanity by observing tragedy in action than observing it in a far and safe place.